Leaderboard

Hmm.. let's see. "Not doing a good job" could easily be defined as "breaking things that already work." For example existing code support for older operating systems. Nice and simple. I fail to see how roytam's software is "abused," give that he is actually fixing things you or Moonchild have broken, on purpose. See above. No one claimed they are official. In fact the About dialog in these builds clearly states they are not. "Not doing a good job" again..? See above. I'd like to see some proof of this supposed "massive confusion." If there is any confusion, it must come from those who are clueless in the first place. You cannot fault roytam for users who are too ignorant to read the About dialog or to deal with any issues here, where the builds are linked, rather than going to you or to the official PaleMoon forum. Also I'd love to see even one example where you or Moonchild or anyone else in your "group" has "cleaned up a mess when something goes wrong" that addressed the first single issue that affected these older operating systems or users of the unofficial builds on these systems. It sounds more to me like you're just a butthurt jerk who is having a tantrum because someone is making your toy work in places where you don't want it to. If you don't like it, write your own closed source program and stop "abusing" Mozilla's existing code. Without Mozilla's existing code, which once again I will remind you already provides compatibility for the systems roytam is targeting, and which you have intentionally broken, your pet projects would be nonexistent.

Plus isn't Matt just using SeaMonkey and altering it into a browser-only product? By the way, everyone knows I'm not stuck on the continued use of XP. BUT .... BUT .... as it stands, native Seamonkey can still run on XP, can't it? Now if Borealis can't, then isn't Matt doing the same thing to the Mozilla code that he accuses Roytam1 of doing to Borealis and Interlink? Here's the way I see it. Even if I shake my head at those still using XP, I'm not going to put up intentional road-blocks, just to make life miserable for those people. So Matty Boy, why not just let Roytam1 continue compiling these applications for XP and Vista compatibility? Forget about "following the agreement to the LETTER"; what about exercising the spirit of the license. Think about it - other than your arrogant and hostile attitude, they ACTUALLY LIKE your work, and want to use it. How much bigger of a compliment can you get?

Just saying ... https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-new-study-shows-home-edition-users-are-baffled-by-updates/ https://insider.windows.com/en-us/articles/were-listening-to-you/ Mission Status: FAILED jaclaz

Nope. Delusions of grandeur. Guess what. A judge or jury would be the one "deem reasonable" in this case if it ever came to court. Aside from that, given in this case that you are already perfectly able to and actively "digitally distributing" the executable form, then I don't believe any judge or jury would look favorably on you purposely creating arbitrary "obstacles" in the way of accessing the source code, which could be construed as an "attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights" as prohibited in Section 3.1. Also, returning to the first point, given that literally thousands of open-source programs (and even entire operating systems) today are perfectly capable of providing digital distribution of their sources, I see no reason why a judge or jury should entertain the idea of providing an exception for you. And, even in the end, if you were somehow able to pull that off, I'll pledge $100 right now toward the cost of creating more work and annoyance for you. Remember me when you're making trips to the post office.

@roytam1 Personally, if I were you, I would remove all references in your packages and compilations to Matt A Tobin and his work. He's not worth your aggravation!!!

With all due respect to the author(s) of the Binary Outcast source code and the Trademark holders of related application names and artwork, the referenced "site" provides binaries compiled from forked code, code forked from the official Binary Outcast one; even in GitHub, when you fork a repository the forked repository contains at least one reference to the original repository in the form of a link to that one... So, in practical terms, what's the great harm if the original author/official brand name the derived product is based on is mentioned just once just to inform consumers of the products they're about to download? You mentioned in one of your earlier posts the possibility of "confusing" users; I'd certainly be confused under that scenario (i.e. when no info is provided about the hosted product). Under your same logic, the Waterfox browser people should make no mention whatsoever to Mozilla and/or Firefox, the platform/app they forked from; but they do, in fact, include the following disclaimer in all of their website pages (including the download page): Are they too acting in bad faith and/or in an illegal fashion? How is this different to @roytam1 having the following disclaimer: Apologies, I am not a native English speaker, so i had to look up "snarky" : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snarky How you'd go and describe Roy's "actions" as "snarky" and "backhanded" is completely beyond me (???) ; all that was done was to comply to the wishes/suggestions expressed in the linked MSFN forum post; well, the screengrab of that post was added for "posterity", you know, because posts can always be edited (just like "your coneys" was subdued to "your people"; BTW, I am noone's "people", I pride in not following "flocks" but make my own mind on things in both real and digital life...). I acknowledge several legal issues were raised with regards to the BinOC forked products (this is all very apparent to me now) and, as unpleasant as legal issues may be, these DO have to be addressed properly; this should have been conducted in an amicable manner, instead it has escalated into a Cold War Era confrontation, where each party is wary of the other and one party in particular is trigger happy, ready to push the "Nuke'em All!" red button... At the end of the day, while the lawyers might be satisfied, all that remains for mere mortals is the hostility and bitterness in the atmosphere - in the long run, this is detrimental to everyone... Regards

codename. I think I have the right to choose the name of that directory, no matter it is cf69fed1697d94a058f6074ab55fd6094a200a3ec1af1e806fe537f1d115c2d283f7a083fdcb157a2abe0fda98d74f3b31ca0484aa803e48177dbb53eb1cdd34 or tVnRIF7Nvg4Ywlcv4zUffArn+LyLpeCPezvyqEXTw2RF5gU1skMG87JFy0KiaPVy or anything else. BTW for Borealis™, I can only remember this: https://www.borealisgroup.com/company/about-borealis/overview

What a pity, there are millions of obsolete computers that Google/YouTube won't be able to data-mine from!

How come it is "boc-uxp" (and not "BinOC-uxp")? jaclaz

the download page has this statement included and Borealis™ binaries are removed. http://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/

IE11 for Server 2012 is scheduled to be released sometime in spring 2019 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4488955

why not? issue encounters in boc-uxp binaries, of course I can pull them down (but I think mailnews binaries should be fine, borxp may not) and for seamonkey-related artworks, I don't think there is an issue.

not quite possible due to rust usage.

because youtube requires mediasource now, this will be hard to fix. PM26 doesn't use any ffmpeg/ffvpx bits(it relies on libvpx only) so this won't work.

Well, as you say it's not PM, what's all the talk about copyright and trademarks etc....????

What tune Matt? Please sing it for me - this I just gotta hear! Hugs and kisses

Come at you? Man, you really sound threatening there @Matt A. Tobin. Watch that blood pressure you useless piece of butt-wipe, you. By the way folks, this fine piece of waste has two rules: listen closely: (1) On;ly call him "Tobin", "Matt A Tobin" or "New Tobin Diaphragm" - wait I'm sorry "Paradigm" .... "Paradigm" (2) Never just call him "Matt", "Matt Tobin", "Matty Boy" (hey that might work), or any obscene term that might make me smile. **** In other words - obey # 2.

So, in other words you are a follower? I understand you're NOT a trendsetter and you only do what you see others do....My son is 3 and he sets his own path NOT follow. As I said before, step it up or fallback slim. There is NO solution for this problem you might endure!!

If you and moonchild did a better job, then there would be no need for unofficial versions... Step your game up or get out of the wayyyyy.......

To quote Fred Flintstone! "Ewwwwwww Boy"

2.2 is out! https://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/releases/tag/2.2 Edit: It turns out that Github is refusing connections from RetroZilla 2.1, so it is impossible to download RetroZilla 2.2 using RetroZilla 2.1 (and I assume any official Mozilla release for 9x and NT4 as well as IE6). This issue will only affect 2.1 and below, as the security suite was updated in 2.2 (thanks @roytam1). I will look further to see if there is a way to access github using HTTP, or find an alternative host for the 2.2 binaries. There will be no way to change this in existing 2.1 installations, so consider the updater for 2.1 a notifier. Edit 2: Link that works in RetroZilla 2.1: http://www.filedropper.com/retrozilla-22en-uswin32installer